Comments

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

(Just want to point out that you gave January Jones a slide but accidentally included her among the other notable candidates.)

Great writeups as usual, Dan! I really loved "Rectify" and am kind of bummed it won't get much attention next month. I know you guys always say that critical buzz doesn't translate into awards, but I hope stuff like "Top of the Lake" and "Orphan Black" will at least start pointing Emmy voters to fringier cable channels, like Sundance, that are doing great stuff.

And I'm assuming that "Top of the Lake" will get a handful of nominations, maybe? But I may be overestimating its hopes, what with all of the category stacking and fraud that goes on. "Orphan Black" has one hope for a nomination and we'll see if Tatiana Maslany can pull it off... And, alas, "Rectify" probably doesn't stand much chance. But it'll be high in my Top 10 for the year. If that matters...

This is a really good list Dan. I can see Downton and Mad Men ruling it in this category, but like you said who knows if anyone from Mad Men will actually get anything for acting. I know you acknowledged it, but Lena Headey was great too, but season two was probably a better showcase for her.

Side note: I see you're still putting Deborah Ann Woll in the notable candidates section. She does good in a bad show, but I would of liked to see Bauer van Straten in there too, since she was the ONE thing I enjoyed in that show last season. Too bad both are always wasted.

The reason people don't care for January Jones is simple--she's at time mediocre but mostly just a bad actress cast on a great show because of her resemblance to Grace Kelly. "The Better Half" was a good episode for her but that had more to do with the writing than anything else. After six years, the fact that there are stil JJ apologists baffles me. She's bad!

I completely disagree Chuck. Because of the criticism I read, I find myself watching her scenes looking for flaws, bad line readings, whatever so I can understand. I just don't find it, to me she seems like an effortless, believable actress, like I completely believe she's that character, I can't imagine anyone else in the role to be honest.

I guess we'll all have to agree to disagree. You can claim how beautiful the emperor's new clothes are all you want but.... I'm not seeing it. Velocityknown hit the nail on the head... watching her in MAD MEN, you might trick yourself into thinking she's good but in absolutely everything else, she shows no range, depth or nuance whatsoever. There's no there there. Matt Weiner and his staff do a very good job of writing to her terrible weaknesses, that's all, but even they are hampered occasionally. When we're all marveling at JJ's third Oscar win 25 years from now, I'll gladly eat this crow.

Chuck - Yay, sanctimony! When you throw out the "emperor's new cloths," you negate the "we'll all have to agree to disagree."

I thought she showed depth in "Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada" and I'm certain she showed depth and nuance in "Sweetwater."

And the world is full of reasonably talented actors who have never won Oscars. That's about how I'd describe January Jones. She's a reasonably talented actress. There are many better. There are many, many worse. There are also pretty of reasonably good actors who aren't chameleons. January Jones isn't a chameleon. Nobody's said she is.

When did I ever assert being a chameleon was the standard for great or even good acting? Fine, lots of good actors never win Oscars, fair enough. But Humphrey Bogart was pretty much the same in very role and guess what--he was awesome.

With regards to Sweetwater and Estrada, if you feel that way... Fine. Don't know what to say. As Louis Armstrong said, some people... If they don't know, you can't tell 'em.

Chuck - I understand you don't like January Jones. That's nifty. But with all three of your comments, you've felt the need to compound your dislike for her, by insulting people who feel differently. So you say you love me and that's all sweet and s*** but you've now insulted me three times. Not feeling the love, man. Not feeling the love.

Sorry, man. Maybe my tone doesn't come through in written form. I may seem dismissive but never meant to be insulting. This is ultimately just a silly argument about the quality of an actress (note: not calling you silly). Maybe you're not feeling the love but I like reading your stuff and listening to your podcast--well reasoned and intelligent even when I strongly disagree (like now). I feel like you're trying to make me out to be a bit of a villain because I'm disagreeing with you here--nothing I've written seems hateful to me. But maybe I'm misreading you.

Emilia Clarke probably has the best chances of any of the GoT ladies, but I don't think the right combination of circumstances is there for any of them this season. Clarke (and Natalie Dormer) got probably the most buzz, but while Clarke got some very cool stuff, I don't think she got the kind of emotionally complex stuff she had in season 1; Dany was pretty much in imperious leader mode all the way through.

Michelle Fairley really should have had a chance, but she almost literally nothing apart from "The Rains of Castamere", and while a big episode is invaluable, being a nonentity for the other nine episodes of the season makes it very hard to attract the consistent attention of critics, viewers, etc.

The show's two young actresses, Maisie Williams and Sophie Turner, are both really impressive too, although that young I wouldn't rate their chances even if they had submitted themselves (Turner also suffered from the writers' peculiar determination this season to eviscerate her character's material on the altar of Peter Dinklage; if Sansa's third chapter in "A Storm of Swords" had actually been adapted faithfully, more people would be placing Turner in the 'should, but won't, be considered' category).

Personally, I'd like to see Michelle Fairley get it since there is much more to come for Danerys and therefore more opportunity for Emilia to be submitted and win. However Maisie Williams who thoroughly deserves it was not submitted but again many more big things for her to come as well especially next season so I'm sure her hat will be thrown into the ring at some point.

I liked Margaery on the page even in "Storm of Swords" (I think she played a much more relevant role than you do in the scenes with Sansa and her grandmother - but maybe that's me misremembering the book because of the show) but on "A Feast for Crows" she was much more prominent and I though not that far away from the series.

I understand your point of view and tough I don't think she was a non-character, I do agree that her TV incarnation is more interesting, especially because Natalie Dormer is a great actress.

Someone please explain how Archie punjabi was ever nominated. I've seen maybe a dozen episodes of the show but the limiting factor has consistently been how long I can endure watching this poor woman stumble her way through trying to mask her accent

The sad thing is when it comes to the Supporting Actor and Lead Actor categories, I find it very hard to narrow down to 6 choices because there are so many excellent male actors.

For the actress categories, I don't know if it reflects the lack of good actresses or good roles, but it seems like we seem to get same actresses each year. Also, it seems the best performances are in the genre shows (Game of Thrones, Orphan Black, etc.)

The Emmys need to be broken down into two avenues. One being Broadcast TV and the other Cable. TV shows can't compete with cable shows anymore. Cable show have fewer episodes, bigger budgets and no FCC Regulations of Obscenity, Indecency and Profanity which all makes for good TV, like it or not. Just look at who has been nominated over the past several years and it tells a story of where broadcast TV is going and why the Emmys must also make the change. Alot of great TV actor's are overlooked because of this.

Really? Christina Hendricks? Maybe as Best Supporting Bra holding two outrageous boobs. She's like the elephant in the room no one comments on, another reason why Mad Men is the most phony show out there. Dialog NO ONE would ever speak in the 60's.